SooperKanoon Citation | sooperkanoon.com/18181 |
Court | Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi |
Decided On | May-05-2000 |
Reported in | (2000)(122)ELT85TriDel |
Appellant | Commissioner of C. Ex. |
Respondent | Kothari Products |
2. We heard Id. DR and Id. Counsel representing the manufacturer. We have perused the records and dispose of the appeal.
3. The appellate authority in the impugned order came to the conclusion that incidence of duty had not been passed on to the customers, because there was only transfer of stock by the appellants to their C and F agents to Bhiwandi who had charged only so much price from the customers which was effective for that area. No document was produced in this case to support this conclusion. The fact that manufacturer transferred stock to their C and F agents is a finding arrived at by the Commissioner from no acceptable evidence. In such a situation, we are not in a position to agree with him that only so much price as was payable by the customers of Bhiwandi was realised by the manufacturer.
There is nothing on record to show that manufacture had not, in fact, passed on the incidence of duty to customers. Therefore, his claim for refund is not tenable on the basis of principles of unjust enrichment.
4. The order passed by the Commissioner allowing refund is set aside.
Appeal is allowed.